Breaking the law 25 years ago
Breaking the law 25 years ago
Author
Discussion

Cool Mart

Original Poster:

133 posts

244 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
I *might* have some footage of illegal driving from 25 years ago, what are the legalities if it makes it online ?

Is there a time limit for prosecution of not very safe driving ?

R8Steve

4,150 posts

205 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
I think you should be safe now as long as it doesn't involve shooting the passenger with a sawn off shotgun while driving. laugh

Derek Smith

49,892 posts

278 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Cool Mart said:
I *might* have some footage of illegal driving from 25 years ago, what are the legalities if it makes it online ?

Is there a time limit for prosecution of not very safe driving ?
There's a big difference between not very safe driving and, for instance, serious sexual offences.

Are you suggesting that a person who has committed a serious sexual offence against a woman should be let off if, for instance, he or she was in a position of power which allowed them to make prosecution at the time very difficult?


Hungry Pigeon

239 posts

214 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
There's a big difference between not very safe driving and, for instance, serious sexual offences.

Are you suggesting that a person who has committed a serious sexual offence against a woman should be let off if, for instance, he or she was in a position of power which allowed them to make prosecution at the time very difficult?
Given that the OPs post makes no mention whatsoever of serious sexual offences, if I had to put money on it I'd suggest he's not in any way concerned about having committed such offences in the past. What he's worried about, as per that post, is whether video evidence of ttish driving 25 years ago can now be used against him. If you can answer his question, please feel free to do so. smile


Cool Mart

Original Poster:

133 posts

244 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Hmmm, that got serious quickly.

I'm pretty sure I didn't touch her knee

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

188 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Are you suggesting that a person who has committed a serious sexual offence against a woman should be let off
Where the hell did that come from? He didn't even hint anything of the sort yet you're trying to put words into his mouth.

Cool Mart

Original Poster:

133 posts

244 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Hungry Pigeon said:
Derek Smith said:
There's a big difference between not very safe driving and, for instance, serious sexual offences.

Are you suggesting that a person who has committed a serious sexual offence against a woman should be let off if, for instance, he or she was in a position of power which allowed them to make prosecution at the time very difficult?
Given that the OPs post makes no mention whatsoever of serious sexual offences, if I had to put money on it I'd suggest he's not in any way concerned about having committed such offences in the past. What he's worried about, as per that post, is whether video evidence of ttish driving 25 years ago can now be used against him. If you can answer his question, please feel free to do so. smile
ttish ... that's the word I was looking for smile

Derek Smith

49,892 posts

278 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Cool Mart said:
Hmmm, that got serious quickly.

I'm pretty sure I didn't touch her knee
My apologies. I thought you were relating to the series of sexual offences that have been reported after a number of years have elapsed. I could not believe that anyone would not know about limitations in prosecution of minor traffic offences.

Hungry Pigeon

239 posts

214 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Cool Mart said:
Hmmm, that got serious quickly.

I'm pretty sure I didn't touch her knee
That's the Metropolitan Police for you smile

InitialDave

15,130 posts

149 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
My apologies. I thought you were relating to the series of sexual offences that have been reported after a number of years have elapsed. I could not believe that anyone would not know about limitations in prosecution of minor traffic offences.
Well, I don't know, and I suspect many others don't, so if you have something definitive that lays out how long until such things can't be followed up, that'd be interesting reading.

S. Gonzales Esq.

2,559 posts

242 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
...you're trying to put words into his mouth.
..as long as it's just words.


As for the OP, Google 'C'était un rendez-vous'. That guy got away with it.

anonymous-user

84 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Post the footage here and we’ll have a better idea wink

ubbs

710 posts

247 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Hey op you’re not the chap from the well viewed video of a red Porsche 911 vs super bike are you?

Cool Mart

Original Poster:

133 posts

244 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
I didn't think there would be an issue, it was a long time ago.

The footage is on video tape and some on Super8 so I was thinking of getting it digitised, but didn't want an overzealous member of staff at Snappy Snaps confiscating it.

Watching it this afternoon and my heart was pounding as I relived my misspent youth .... it scares me just watching it these days !

untakenname

5,360 posts

222 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Surely you can just not name the driver? Loads of recent stuff is put up on youtube of people ragging pcp hot hatches and the police don't seem to do anything so 25 years ago should attract very little attention.

4x4Tyke

6,506 posts

162 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Hungry Pigeon said:
Given that the OPs post makes no mention whatsoever of serious sexual offences, if I had to put money on it I'd suggest he's not in any way concerned about having committed such offences in the past. What he's worried about, as per that post, is whether video evidence of ttish driving 25 years ago can now be used against him. If you can answer his question, please feel free to do so. smile
Whoosh parrot much?

Extreme examples to show it depends very much on the nature of the offence.

4rephill

5,168 posts

208 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
.......As for the OP, Google 'C'était un rendez-vous'. That guy got away with it.
Which guy? confused

Despite the director Claude Lelouch saying years later that he drove the car himself, there is no conclusive proof that he did do the driving, and it would be all too easy for him to deny it if questioned and charged.


The reality for the OP is, the Police are not going to be interested in any ancient footage of some tcensoredtish driving unless a more serious offence occurred during it, such as a hit and run incident where someone was seriously injured or killed.


Cool Mart

Original Poster:

133 posts

244 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
untakenname said:
Surely you can just not name the driver? Loads of recent stuff is put up on youtube of people ragging pcp hot hatches and the police don't seem to do anything so 25 years ago should attract very little attention.
It wasn't fair to assume it wouldn't be a problem, when the video shows me chasing two friends on their motorbikes with number plates clearly in view.

A bit of fun on a quiet Sunday afternoon and no real danger to any one apart from ourselves .... like most we believed ourselves to be invincible at that age !

Pistom

6,422 posts

189 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
Cool Mart said:
A bit of fun on a quiet Sunday afternoon and no real danger to any one apart from ourselves .... like most we believed ourselves to be invincible at that age !
Clearly most of us were. We're here aren't we, despite doing stuff that kids these days only do virtually.

Yipper

5,964 posts

120 months

Friday 3rd November 2017
quotequote all
If your face or voice are in it = do not post.

If "someone else" unknown is in it = post for everyone to have a good chuckle / handwring.